Phil Crane

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2644.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield further blocks of time in support of the bill.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2644, the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act. This bill would allow the people of the Caribbean region to compete on a level playing field with their counterparts in the rest of North America. I firmly believe fostering self-sufficiency through trade, not foreign aid, is the best way to assist our 30 million neighbors living in the Caribbean Basin countries, especially given the relative lack of development in that region. The bill accomplishes this by granting to the Caribbean Basin partnership countries tariff treatments similar to that accorded to Canada and Mexico for a temporary period of 14 months. I believe that expanding the benefits of the Caribbean Basin initiative on a temporary basis will encourage partnership countries to complete the economic reforms that will be necessary for them to qualify for similar trade benefits on a permanent basis in the future. For my colleagues who are new to this body, the original Caribbean Basin initiative, or CBI, was passed in 1983 under the leadership of President Reagan and Mr. Sam Gibbons. The program is based on the understanding that it is in the national security interests of the United States to encourage the development of strong democratic governments and healthy economies in neighboring countries of the Caribbean and Central America through the expansion of trade. Likewise, it is fundamentally in the economic interests of the United States to encourage coproduction arrangements with the region in order to sustain textile and apparel manufacturing operations in the United States under changing competitive conditions. Since the CBI became law, U.S. trade policy has focused on other geographic areas. The bill before us today assures that our commitment to the Caribbean Basin countries fostered by Ronald Reagan nearly 15 years ago is not eroded over time. Furthermore, I believe it is important that the United States develop a coherent trade policy that recognizes the economic development needs of Caribbean Basin countries and which does not prejudice their participation in future trade arrangements. My purpose in pursuing this bill is to foster a policy where CBI countries receive guidance and the necessary incentives to adopt the market opening reforms that will prepare them for further trade liberalization. I want to emphasize here today that expanding trade with the Caribbean through existing CBI provisions has already been a huge success for U.S. business and workers. During the life of the program, U.S. exports to the region have grown from $5.8 billion in 1983 to over $15.4 billion in 1996. Last year, U.S. exports to the Caribbean Basin grew by 14.5 percent, a rate more than twice as great as the rate of growth in U.S. exports to the rest of the world. Prior to the original CBI legislation, the United States ran a substantial trade deficit with the region. The United States now has almost a $1 billion annual trade surplus with this group of countries. Moreover, many of the countries in the region regularly import the vast majority of the foreign products they purchase each year from the United States. As CBI countries expand their success, it translates directly into U.S. economic growth and job creation. Presently, the U.S.-Caribbean commercial relationship supports more than 300,000 jobs in the United States. Virtually every State in the Union has benefited from this relationship. I know my own State of Illinois sold $319 million of exports to the region last year. Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the provisions of this bill were already approved by the House last summer as part of the balanced budget reconciliation bill. They were dropped in conference at the insistence of the Senate which had not yet considered the measure. However, the Senate Committee on Finance recently reported similar legislation. So consideration of the bill separately today is highly appropriate, now that the other body is beginning to appreciate the importance of expanding trade with the CBI region. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2644 was reported from the Committee on Ways and Means by voice vote twice this year and has strong bipartisan support. Let us build on past success and expand the U.S. partnership with our neighbors in the Caribbean Basin. I urge approval of H.R. 2644. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller]. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Packard]. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2644) to provide to beneficiary countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act benefits equivalent to those provided under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report to H.R. 2107. While I may have disagreements with other portions of the bill, I would like to focus my remarks on the funding provided for the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA]. Again, let me state that my primary objection to the NEA is that the agency is constitutionally indefensible. Of course, I object, too, to the cavailier attitude exhibited by the bureaucrats at the NEA in the funding of lewd, sacrilegious, and pornographic art over the years. But regardless of the type of art funded by the NEA, the agency is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Rather than reiterate my well known objections to the NEA, I want to address the funding and the reforms for the NEA in this conference report. First, the funding for the NEA is hardly a compromise with the other body. When the House passed H.R. 2107, it contained no funding for the NEA. When the other body considered the bill, they inserted $100 million for the fiscal year 1998 operations of the agency. The bill then went to conference. A conference committee is designed to arrive at a compromise between the differences of the two Houses. Yet, this conference report exhibits no signs of compromise on the NEA. A logical compromise may have been a $50 million funding level for the agency, but instead, the bill provides $98 million--a mere $1.5 million cut from last year's appropriation. Now, my colleagues that served on the conference committee are claiming that the real compromise was with regard to the so-called NEA reforms. While some of these may modestly improve the performance of the agency, history has demonstrated that merely reforming the NEA has produced insignificant results. The arts in America will be better off only when Washington bureaucrats no longer determine what good and proper art deserves the support of involuntarily raised tax dollars. This NEA appropriation amounts to less than 1 percent of the annual private sector contributions to the arts and humanities in America, which is more than $10 billion. Clearly artists in America rely on privately raised money rather than NEA grants to survive. Yet, with one of the reforms in this bill, the NEA will be allowed to begin to compete with private arts foundations for private contributions. If Congress is allowing the NEA to solicit private contributions, why does the agency need these extravagant taxpayer subsidies? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my colleagues that our constituents will never believe that Washington will balance the budget unless Congress musters the fortitude to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful Government agencies. While the NEA appropriation is a relatively small percentage of the entire Federal budget, it is a huge symbol of both Washington's insatiable appetite for the money of American taxpayers, as well as the attitude that Washington knows better than our constituents what is best for them. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2646, legislation to provide American families with the opportunity to save for their childrens' education. I commend the Speaker and our committee chairman, Bill Archer, for their leadership on this issue. As a former university professor and school headmaster, I take great interest in efforts to improve the education of our children. The bill before the House today provides taxpayers with new education IRA accounts which will allow annual after tax contributions of up to $2,500 to be saved for not only college expenses, but for expenses incurred from kindergarten through high school. When used for education purposes, the interest earned in these accounts will be free from additional taxation. These education dollars will belong to the taxpayer, not the Government, and children will have them available for their public, private or home schooling needs. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, passed earlier this year by Congress, provided education IRA's, but limited their use to college expenses. In that bill, the Republican Congress had attempted to provide education IRA's for all levels of schooling. This broad IRA survived the House/Senate conference committee, where I supported it, as well as the negotiations with the Clinton administration. It was only after the tax deal was publicly announced that President Clinton quietly threatened to veto the whole tax cut package unless the kindergarten through high school use provisions were eliminated. The President is also threatening to veto this attempt to help parents educate their kids. As usual, the President is looking out for his campaign contributors, rather than our children the future of our country. I must address the rather specious claims of the opponents of this bill. While our liberal colleagues support education IRA's for colleges, they have lined up in opposition to expanding IRA use for all levels of our childrens' education. I have received letters in my office from teachers unions, school board associations, and the administration claiming that these IRA accounts will undermine public education in this country. These groups obviously misunderstand this bill. Parents are free to use these IRA accounts for their children, regardless of whether they attend public, private or home schools. In the case of public-schooled children, parents can, for example, use their IRA to provide a tutor for their child. If parents use the IRA money to send their child to a private school or to home school their children, they are not relying on a government handout--it is their own money. These IRA's are foreign to the liberal education hierarchy because it removes Washington as an obstacle to educating our kids. In recent years, public education in America has too often failed our kids. I do not intend to condemn the hard-working teachers, because they need help too. This failure is unfortunately, exemplified in the schools in our Nation's capital. No school system in America, public or private, spends more money per pupil than does Washington, DC. Yet the children in Washington's public schools rank nearly last in academic achievement in America. Taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into our schools and our children are seeing less and less return on this investment. Yet when we Republicans, and a brave Democrat or two, propose to allow parents more freedom and options to educate their children, the liberal education establishment alleges that we are attacking children. How much more failure in our schools will Americans tolerate before they take their schools back from the liberal education establishment? Make no mistake about it, opponents of this bill do not trust parents to make decisions about the education and the future of their own children. This bill will give parents an additional valuable tool to use in their childrens' education. Parents, not bureaucrats, will have the ability to decide what is best for the kids, and they can use their IRA accounts accordingly. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2646 and I hope that the President will reconsider his threat to veto this bill.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have long been concerned about the growing resort to unilateral trade sanctions to enforce foreign policy or other nontrade goals. I have always believed that before we impose sanctions, we should think long and hard about the effect of such sanctions on the U.S. economy and our businesses, workers, and consumers. There is little evidence that these sanctions have changed the behavior of the targeted government. Instead, the use of sanctions has translated into billions of dollars of lost opportunities here. In my view, the better policy is to pursue our goals with our trading partners through multilateral fora in an attempt to achieve consensus. In order to achieve this goal, I am, together with my colleague Congressman Hamilton from Indiana, today introducing legislation that would provide a framework for consideration of unilateral trade sanctions by the legislative and executive branches. The bill would not prohibit the imposition of trade sanctions, but it would establish a more deliberative and disciplined approach to U.S. sanctions policy. Specifically, the bill would establish consultations between Congress and the executive branch as well as consideration of alternatives to the use of sanctions. In addition, the bill would ensure that Congress and the administration have adequate information about the likely effectiveness and economic and humanitarian costs of a proposed sanction. The bill would provide for a detailed analysis of whether the proposed sanction is the best tool for achieving U.S. objectives. Finally, the bill would impose regular reporting and sunset establishments. I believe that such a framework would allow us to pause and examine the impact that sanctions would have before we rush into what may be a counterproductive effort.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today, not on a matter that was addressed by H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard Authorization Act, but on one that was not addressed but should have been. Specifically, I refer to the ill-advised relocation, by the U.S. Coast Guard [USCG], of its helicopter rescue unit from Glenview, IL, to Muskegon, MI. The effect of that move, which was prompted by the decision to close the Glenview Naval Air Station, has been to increase, by about 30 minutes, the time it takes for a Coast Guard air rescue helicopter to reach the Chicago lakefront in the case of an emergency. Moreover, that rescue helicopter is now 15-20 minutes further removed from the area north of Chicago, an area featuring over 60 lakes and one of America's most popular recreational waterways, not to mention miles of Lake Michigan shoreline often frequented by boating enthusiasts. As a matter of fact, over 25,000 boating permits have been issued in the Fox River- Chain o' Lakes area of northeastern Illinois alone. Mr. Chairman, the significance of these figures is this. Thousands of people boating near, or flying over, one of the most heavily populated areas of America are at greater risk than they were a year ago. Not only is the USCG's rescue helicopter further away, but it can operate anywhere over lake Michigan whereas the local policy boats and fire department helicopters usually stay within 4 miles of shore. Also, there are two other considerations. First, whenever the USCG helicopter does come down to the Chicago area for a search and rescue mission, it cannot remain aloft as long as it did previously before it has to refuel. Second, the USCG personnel manning that helicopter have more specialized training and equipment than do the dedicated people who operate local police boats and rescue helicopters. Since any one of these considerations could delay or otherwise compromise efforts to rescue people from the waters of lower Lake Michigan, the Fox River, the Chain o' Lakes, and/or the other lakes that dot northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, I think you can understand why so many people in or near that area are concerned about the basing of this USCG helicopter rescue unit. To them, that unit represents the margin between life and death in the event of a serious boating or airplane accident, the potential for which has become increasingly apparent lately. During the past year, no less than 26 people have died in those waters compared to four the year before. Nine of those fatalities resulted from airplane crashes over Lake Michigan, a sobering indication of what could happen if a commercial jet headed to or from either O'Hare Airport or Midway were to suffer a similar fate. In such a circumstance, we would want all available rescue resources on the scene as soon as possible, just as we would in the event a sightseeing boat were to sink or an aircraft were to disappear. But, so long as the USCG's helicopter rescue unit continues to be based in a more thinly populated area across the lake 85 miles from Waukegan, one of those resources--that unit--may not be able to arrive in a timely fashion. For that reason, I would like to see that concern dealt with before too much more time elapses and we suddenly find ourselves confronted with a tragedy. To my way of thinking, there are two sure ways in which it could be addressed. One would be to relocate the USCG helicopter unit presently based in Muskegon back to the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan, preferably at a site in Lake County, IL. The other would be to create a new unit and base it at a site on or near that same stretch of shore. By mentioning these options, I do not mean to suggest the absence of other alternatives, such as Meigs Field in downtown Chicago. Instead, my intent is to underscore the availability of viable options, to emphasize the need to bring the best of them to the fore as soon as possible, and to express the hope that, before H.R. 2204 is sent to the President for his consideration, progress will have been made to that end.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in just over 2 years, the United States will transfer control of the Panama Canal and our adjacent bases to Panama under the terms of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties. Already, preparations for this transition are underway. At this moment, U.S. military forces are scheduled to be drawn down in the region from the 5,600 that remain, out of the traditional 10,500 U.S. troops stationed there, to 4,400. The significance of this process, its imminent completion, and the impact it could have on the U.S. economy and the security of the region cannot be understated. For this reason, I am reintroducing a resolution today calling for the negotiation of a base rights, canal operation and security agreement with Panama that provides for a continued U.S. military presence in the region after December 31, 1999. More than 80 years ago, the United States completed construction of the 51-mile-long interoceanic ship canal across the Isthmus of Panama, one of the great engineering marvels of its or any age. Since then, this man-made waterway has served the maritime nations of the world almost without interruption, enabling ships to travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific and vice versa much faster and cheaper than would have been otherwise possible. For more than 80 years, the U.S. military has stood watch over the canal from a series of bases located in a 10-mile- wide strip of territory adjacent to the canal. From that position, the United States has been prepared to respond effectively not only to immediate threats to the canal itself, but also to other problems that could have eroded hemispheric peace and security. By December 31, 1999, however, the United States forces on these bases must be withdrawn and control over them and the canal will be transferred to Panama. In preparation for this date, the U.S. Southern Command recently moved to its new headquarters just west of Miami. The great importance of the Panama Canal to our country cannot be overlooked when you consider that 15 percent of U.S. seaborne trade, and 5 percent of the world's, passes through its locks. These figures become even more significant when you take into account that trade comprises nearly 30 percent of our gross domestic product [GDP], and that roughly 25 percent of U.S. economic growth in the last 4 years has come from increased exports. As a mature economy, it is clear that the United States must seek to open new markets to our products for our economy to continue to grow and create high paying jobs. For this reason, as chairman of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, I have supported Chile's accession to the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], as well as the trade liberalization underway through the Summit of the Americas and the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] forum, and the initiation of a trade policy toward sub-Saharan Africa. However, it only takes one look at a globe to recognize the critical importance of the Panama Canal to getting U.S. exports to their destinations overseas. Absent the canal, U.S. products would have to be transported via more expensive routes, adding to their overall cost and decreasing their competitiveness in foreign markets. On this basis, it is clear that continued growth in U.S. exports and job creation is, at least in part, dependent on the regular operation of the Panama Canal well into the 21st century. For all of these reasons, the United States national interest compels us to seek the negotiation of an agreement with Panama that will: First, allow the United States to leave military bases in Panama past the turn of the century; second, permit U.S. military forces to operate out of those bases; and third, enable the United States to guarantee the regular operation of the canal. At present, the administration is conducting negotiations with the Panamanians to provide for a continued United States presence in Panama. However, I believe that a continued U.S. presence is meaningless without also having the ability to intervene to guarantee the canal's security and insure its regular operation. It is clear that the conclusion of such an arrangement would also benefit Panama, as 6,000 Panamanian citizens are currently employed on U.S. bases, and $200 to $600 million in additional income for Panama is tied directly to the United States military presence in the region. Moreover, a poll of Panamanians published in March found that 72 percent of those surveyed would like the United States bases to remain open after their scheduled closure date. Similar polls have shown that Americans support a continued U.S. presence in the region as well. Unfortunately, time is growing very short and urgent action is needed to negotiate an agreement with Panama before the United States withdrawal is complete. I ask my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of the critical resolution that I am introducing today and to support swift action on this issue.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to express my support for the conference report on H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. While I would have preferred the version of H.R. 2203 that was passed by the House in July, this bill has much to be said for it. Not only does it keep spending within 1 percent of last year's level, but it helps address a longstanding inequity that the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee reminded us of in a Dear Colleague distributed to all Members on August 28 of this year. Attached to that Dear Colleague was a chart prepared by the Tax Foundation of Washington D.C. Entitled ``Federal Tax Burden by State,'' that chart compared all the taxes paid by each state to the federal government in 1996 to the total amount spend by Uncle Sam on those states in that year. Its figures are indeed interesting, reaffirming what those of us from the great state of Illinois have known for a long time. Our state continues to be one of the biggest of all donor states, only getting 73 cents back for every federal tax dollar it sent to Washington last year. Mr. Speaker, according to the Tax Foundation's figures, only two other states in the country have a lower ratio of taxes paid to dollars returned than does Illinois. Therefore, it is important for a bill like this not to forget the needs of the Prairie State and this bill does not. Not only does the conference report on H.R. 2203 provide needed moneys for two projects in which I have a particular interest--the internationally recognized Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP] and the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project [FRFIP]--but it also funds at least 10 other water-related projects that will benefit Chicago and some of the suburbs to the north and west. As a result, over $20 million will be coming back to the Chicago area this coming fiscal year that will be put to good use combatting the threat of flooding, promoting the preservation of wetlands, dealing with shoreline erosion and maintaining harbors. With all the flooding the Chicagoland has suffered in recent years, this assistance could not come at a better time. That being the case, I want to express my particular thanks to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to the chairman of its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, and to the conferees on H.R. 2203 for their support of such Chicago area projects as the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project and the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project. Not only do I appreciate it but I am sure many others, who want to get a good return on the tax dollars they invest in our government, will as well.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, I object to the policy which motivates the original supporters of the amendment, who feel that additional resources should be provided to the U.S. Trade Representative to identify the effect of the multilateral agreement on investments [MAI] on State and local laws. I do not believe that the funds should be used for this purpose. I am concerned about the use of these funds for any purpose which might alter the progress of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The MAI is the first comprehensive multilateral agreement on investments. However, it is not entirely new. The MAI builds on over 1,000, bilateral investment treaties already in force around the world. Most of those agreements include investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures. The agreement will not force the United States to lower standards, and it will not prevent Congress from regulating the behavior of companies, nor are we agreeing to a dispute settlement process that can force changes in U.S. law. There will be no loss of sovereignty under the MAI. This amendment would deter progress on developing international rules for investment that mirror our international rules for trade by which U.S. companies and their workers have benefited from fairness, openness, and transparency. I therefore strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, recently, several Members of Congress, including myself, met with the administration to discuss fast-track trading authority soon to be offered in the House for consideration. This legislation grants the administration authority to negotiate and implement trade agreements with other nations, which Congress would either support or vote down unamended. It is my opinion that this authority is a necessary step toward the President's goal of having hemispheric free trade by the year 2005. More importantly, fast track is a necessary step to strengthen the U.S. economy at home--helping producers, workers, and consumers. The agreements made as a result of fast track will expand our markets far beyond our shorelines to other nations who desire high quality, American-made products. Exporting companies offer workers jobs, which provide better pay and better benefits. Consumers have a larger variety of products to choose from at more competitive costs. In the past, fast track has been derailed by special interests, who lack the foresight to see that the general interest of our Nation will benefit from free and open trade--a status that can be greatly assisted by extending traditional trading authority to this administration. The following article, which was printed in the Wall Street Journal, on September 12, 1997, highlights the need to pass fast track to maintain our Nation's role in the international marketplace. If it is not passed, special interests will in the end realize that their selfish motivations cause more harm than good. I hope my colleagues consider the points made in this article and support legislation to extend fast- track trading authority to the administration. [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 1997] U.S. Exporters to Latin America Need Fast-Track (By Robert Mosbacher) When President George Bush unveiled his Enterprise of the Americas Initiative in the early 1990s, many thought the emergent free trade bloc would develop according to a ``hub- and-spoke'' model. As the ``hub'' of hemispheric trade, the U.S. would form a series of inter-locking bilateral free trade agreements with the ``spoke'' nations of Latin America and the Caribbean until these agreements could be melded into a single free trade accord. That vision is slipping away. President Clinton promised Wednesday to put trade expansion back on the front-burner. He plans to ask Congress to renew fast-track legislation, which would authorize the president to negotiate international trade agreements on which Congress would vote up or down. If he fails to secure fast-track authority, however, the U.S. will be relegated to ``spoke'' status in the emerging hemispheric trading order, leaving many U.S. businesses at a disadvantage. Furthermore, fast- track authority should be clean--that is, it must not be weighted down with requirements that trade agreements also mandate environmental and labor regulations. Since the promising 1994 Miami summit, when the proposed trade initiative was renamed the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the U.S. has withdrawn from its leadership role on liberalized trade. Instead, inter-locking trade relationships have been forming around the southern cone customs union-- Mercosur--comprising Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. Last year, while Washington dithered, Mercosur took decisive action, offering Chile and Bolivia associate membership. This created a market of 220 million potential consumers with a combined gross domestic product of about $1 trillion--more than twice the economic output of Asean, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. This year, while still waiting for the president to lead on fast-track, Mercosur is planning free trade talks with Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru. Mercosur might soon realize its goal of establishing a South America Free Trade Area, which could serve as a counterweight to Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement, in hemispheric free trade talks. Mercosur has already been approached by the European Union about a free trade alliance and will also soon begin free trade talks with Mexico, Canada and the Central American Common Market. One of the consequences of Mercosur's expansion and the American retrenchment is that the U.S. is losing leverage in hemispheric free trade talks. While official negotiations are not scheduled to begin until 1998, the failure of the U.S. to secure fast-track leaves open the distinct possibility that the agenda and timetable for these talks will be dominated by other countries. Lack of fast-track is also hurting U.S. companies seeking access to the region's dynamic consumer markets. American wine producers are losing market share in Venezuela to Chilean producers, not because Venezuelans prefer Chilean Merlot to Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, but because Chile has a free trade agreement with Venezuela that allows its wines to enter the country tariff free. American wines, by contrast, carry a hefty 20% duty. If the duty were to be eliminated, industry experts believe that U.S. wine producers could see their share of the Venezuelan market jump from the current 5% to well over 30%. While California wine producers cannot pull up their vines and move to more hospitable commercial climates, other industries are less restricted. Caterpillar Inc., based in Peoria, Ill., recently announced plans to produce bulldozers, excavators and off-road trucks in Brazil for export to Chile. The decision to build the equipment on foreign rather than U.S. soil was based on tariff considerations. U.S. exports to Chile face an average 11% tariff, while tariffs on Brazilian exports are being phased out under Mercosur. Other companies that may follow Caterpillar's lead include General Electric and Eastman Kodak. Several major U.S.-based multinationals with joint ventures in Chile--including IBM, Southwestern Bell and McDonald's-- have announced plans to source millions of dollars in equipment in Canada and Mexico rather than in the U.S. The reason, again, is that Canada and Mexico have bilateral free trade accords with Chile that permit their goods to enter the South American country tariff-free, while U.S. goods face prohibitive duties. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the loss of opportunity for U.S. exports to Chile is $480 million a year and climbing. Those who question the need for deeper economic integration should consider the benefits of Nafta. Notwithstanding the 1994 peso devaluation--which halved the price of Mexico's exports to the U.S.--U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada have grown 34% since the pact took effect in 1994. They now outstrip total U.S. exports to either the Pacific Rim or Europe. According to a Council of the Americas study of 21 U.S. states, nine states have witnessed 40% plus growth in exports to Mexico and Canada since 1993 and another seven have seen those export markets grow by more than 30% during that time. In 1996, California exported to Mexico more than $9 billion in goods and services. The California World Trade Commission estimates that exports to Mexico support more than 125,000 jobs in the Golden State, with almost 25,000 of these jobs resulting from export growth in 1995 alone. Nafta has also helped promote U.S. interests in Mexico by helping stabilize the country in the aftermath of the peso crisis. After Mexico's 1982 peso devaluation, it took seven years before the country showed signs of recovery. By contrast, Mexico's economy touched bottom and began to turn around less than 12 months after the December 1994 devaluation. There is also little doubt that the climate of openness fostered by Nafta raised political consciousness and contributed to the July 6 electoral shakeup that ended 70 years of political dominance by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. An activist American trade policy made possible by fast- track negotiating authority will keep the U.S. economy strong and guarantee that future generations enjoy rising living standards. That said, the importance of fast-track transcends economic issues. As Rep. Lee Hamilton (D., Ind.) recently said, ``Fast-track is not just about trade, it is about U.S. leadership and influence in the world. And a president without fast-track is a president without power to promote U.S. interests abroad.'' We ignore this reality at our own peril.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, along with my Ways and Means colleagues, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Herger and Mrs. Thurman, entitled the ``Charitable Giving Relief Act.'' This legislation will provide a deduction for charitable contributions for those who do not itemize deductions on their tax returns. Specifically, the bill will allow nonitemizers, whose cumulative annual charitable contributions exceed $500, to deduct 50 percent of any charitable contributions made over that amount. Under current law, while nonitemizers receive the standard deduction, the only taxpayers who can specifically deduct the value of their charitable contributions are those taxpayers who itemize deductions. The most recent figures find that nonitemized returns number 84 million compared to 34 million itemized returns. Nonitemizers, by any measure, are middle-and lower- middle-class taxpayers, who, despite the fact that they do not receive a deduction for such contributions, give generously to charitable causes. It is my understanding that on average nonitemizers give roughly $500 in charitable contributions, again, without the benefit of tax deductions. As we look to next year and the consideration of additional tax relief legislation, I believe there is no group of taxpayers more deserving of tax relief than those who give of what little they have to help other worthy endeavors and charitable causes. While those who itemize are directly rewarded for their efforts, those that do not itemize are not rewarded. The legislation I am introducing today will ensure that those who make considerable contributions to the nonprofit community are rewarded, at least to some extent, by the Tax Code. For those who might suggest that nonitemizers are rewarded by virtue of the fact that the standard deduction for nonitemizers is intended to incorporate some degree of charitable contributions, I would respond by pointing to the figures mentioned earlier. Indeed, the standard deduction is, in effect, designed to take into account the average cumulative basket of those expenditures, including charitable contributions, that might otherwise be considered as individually itemized deductions. However, since my legislation is designed to provide a partial deduction--50 percent--for those nonitemizers who contribute more than the average amount to charity, such a concern would certainly appear to be something less than compelling. Finally, I would note that while in my view, donations to charity are primarily motivated by altruistic concerns, those that give can be sensitive to tax considerations. Independent Sector, the largest national association for nonprofits, strongly believes this legislation will encourage additional giving to the charitable-nonprofit sector. My colleagues, whether you believe that we need to reward those that give, or believe that this type proposal will encourage more giving, this bill deserves your consideration and support. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and I hope to reward and continue this tradition with today's introduction of the Charitable Giving Relief Act.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. CPB is funded by a 2-year advance appropriation, and this year Congress will provide CPB funding for the fiscal year 2000. In the 104th Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations provided only $240 million for CPB in fiscal year 1998. However, $10 million was added back in conference, and now in the 105th, the Committee on Appropriations has increased funding for CPB in fiscal year 2000 from $250 to $300 million. The CPB funding bill has come before the floor during this week and I have reintroduced my amendment to terminate funding for CPB. At a time when we are trying to balance the budget, we must eliminate agencies like the CPB, and I am not exclusively targeting CPB. We must reduce or eliminate much of the Washington bureaucracy. For the past 4 years the Republicans have continually reduced funding for CPB. For fiscal year 1996 the appropriation was $275 million; 1997, $260 million; 1998, $250 million. I have with me the report from the Committee on Appropriations from the 104th Congress and it notes that the bill provides $240 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal year 1998, a decrease of $20 million below the comparable 1997 funding level and $56,400,000 below the President's request. This level of funding will continue the process of graduating the CPB from annual Federal appropriations with the goal of achieving independence from the Federal Government that was the goal of the Republican-controlled 104th Congress. And now, as I say, we are looking at reversing what we made a commitment to do and escalating the expenditure levels for CPB. Federal spending is a small percentage of public broadcasting's revenue. Of public broadcasting's $1.9 billion budget in 1995, only about 15 percent of that comes from Federal appropriations. The functions of public broadcasting, education, entertainment, diversity, are now duplicated in other entities, such as cable, direct satellite, VCR's, and public access shows. PBS has a nondisclosure agreement with the producers of Barney. However, the last figures from a 1995 Wall Street Journal article reported that despite Barney's $1 billion gross revenues and Barney's founder Sheryl Leach's $84 million earnings, almost nothing goes to CPB. After public broadcasters provided exposure for Barney, Barney has become an institution. Barney was created by the Lyons group. Founder Sheryl Leach and her partner were listed as one of Forbes Magazine's highest paid entertainers with 1993-94 earnings of $84 million. CPB discriminates in its distribution of money. It sends money to the stations with the most powerful signals and the largest measured audiences and shies away from financing more than one outlet in a single market. However, many public TV stations themselves are now redundant. CPB estimates that 58 percent of Americans receive two or more public TV stations. Chicago gets three; New York, four, Washington, DC, three; Kansas City, two. Public broadcasting funds should go to rural stations where the need for access and diversity is most acute. If CPB were truly the philanthropic organization it claims to be, cuts in its budget would not lead to the end of small stations; instead it would end big stations where consumers have a number of choices. Small stations, where there are limited alternatives, would be the last to go. Finally, if private cable channels, such as Arts & Entertainment, C- SPAN, ESPN, and the History Channel are all private and successful, if CPB were privatized it could do well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time. I want to compliment him and my distinguished neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. The case that the gentleman from Illinois will get into in some detail occurred in a portion of my old district that I lost apparently just on the eve of the molestation of that little girl by that pervert teacher. But a thing that I think is important as a father of seven daughters is, I certainly would want to be notified and communicated with in a similar type circumstance. I think as a parent I have an absolute right to be notified, and that I make that kind of a decision for a minor child. I think a minor child, as in the case that the gentleman will elaborate on more fully later, a minor child involved in this kind of situation at the age of 13 is hardly in a position to be making any kind of significant judgments about what is proper behavior. One needs the parental consultation and involvement. I would urge my colleagues, because it does not sabotage the remainder of title X, but it does put that important qualification in there, and I would urge my colleagues to support the Istook-Manzullo amendment.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that would change the terminology used in U.S. trade statutes from most favored nation [MFN] to normal trade relations [NTR] in order to more accurately reflect the nature of the trade relationship in question. This legislation would correct a misnomer under U.S. law. the term ``most favored nation'' has been quite misleading because it has implied that we were extending benefits greater than the normal benefits we extend to our trading partners under the World Trade Organization. However, in extending MFN treatment, we have been doing no more than extending the same benefits we extend to other trading partners. Specifically, in the context of U.S. tariff legislation, MFN treatment means that the products of a country given such treatment are subject to lower rates of duty--found in column 1 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule [HTS] of the United States. Products from countries not eligible for MFN treatment under U.S. law are subject to higher rates of duty--found in column 2 of the HTS. Under current United States law, only six countries are subject to column 2 treatment: Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Serbia and Montenegro, and Vietnam. Every other country in the world is subject to either conditional or unconditional MFN treatment, or to even more preferential rates than MFN under free-trade agreements. Accordingly, we should make clear to the American people what this treatment really is: merely normal.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, as vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and as one of the House conferees on the tax bill, it is with great pleasure that I rise today on the floor of the House of Representatives to speak in strong support of legislation which will provide substantial tax relief for the American people. Most importantly, it appears that this bill, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, will be signed into law and will become the first major tax relief package the American taxpayer has seen enacted since 1981. Although it was in 1994 that Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives and started pushing in earnest for a tax cut, it took us nearly 3 years to finally convince this President that the American people were in need of real tax relief. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the taxpayers of the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois, I'm glad the President finally got the message. By now everyone should know the story of the middle class taxpayer. Today, the typical family devotes more of their family budget to combined Federal, State, and local taxes than they do to food, clothing, and housing. Considering this statement, it should come as no surprise that it is also a fact that Americans are being taxed today at record high levels. The time to reverse these trends is long overdue, and the legislation before us today is, I hope, only the first significant step toward relieving family tax burdens. What is in the bill before us today? While time does not permit me to discuss every aspect of this bill in detail, let me start by saying that families with children will be the big winners. The $500 per child credit provided in this bill will begin to rebuild the foundation of take home pay for families with children which has been seriously eroded over the past few decades. Indeed, had the current dependent deduction been indexed for inflation from its inception, the per child deduction would be over $8,000 rather than in the $2,500 range that we find today. We needed to do something, whether it be to dramatically increase the deduction--as I have long advocated--or provide a credit--as I introduced at the start of the 104th Congress. Relief is provided in this bill. What else can taxpayers look forward to? The bill will expand opportunities for Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's] and provide for penalty free withdrawals for education and first time homebuyers, legislation I have cosponsored for years. And the bill provides substantial education tax incentives. In addition, the bill substantially provides relief from the death tax, raising the exempt amount from $600,000 to $1 million by 2007 and providing, in 1998, an exemption of $1.3 million for small businesses and family farms. As I have said before, the death tax is an extremely punitive tax as it penalizes those who have saved, invested, and paid taxes throughout their lives in the hopes of leaving something for their loved ones. I look forward to the day when I will never again hear the story of the family farm being sold to pay the estate tax, and that is why I will continue with my legislative efforts to eliminate the death tax entirely. While allowing the American taxpayer keep more of their hard earned money will help spur economic growth indirectly, there are several provisions in this bill which will very directly encourage economic growth and job creation. The Taxpayer Relief Act reduces the capital gains tax rate substantially. Encouraging investment in capital will increase the pool of capital which will in turn increase access and thus stimulate job growth. another little discussed provision of the bill will reduce the burden placed on businesses by the alternative minimum tax [AMT]. This legislation exempts 95 percent of businesses from having to pay the AMT and it is my hope that members of this Congress are finally realizing that when they excessively tax businesses, they are simply increasing the price of products to consumers, killing jobs and hurting the ability of our businesses to compete internationally. As with death taxes, my goal is to eventually eliminate capital gains taxes and the AMT altogether; however, this bill is a good start in that direction. Because of the provisions I have just mentioned, this is a bill well worth passing, despite any further improvements or changes that I might personally wish to make. While we have certainly heard such rhetoric in the weeks leading up to this day, I find it refreshing that the class warfare rhetoric that once dominated floor debate on tax cuts has at least been toned down to some degree. I would hope that we can finally put behind us once and for all the divisive class warfare rhetoric that has resonated all too frequently in this House chamber. The politics of envy, the politics of division, is simply crass politics that does far more harm than good. Following my statement I have included in the Record a copy of an article by Thomas Sowell which further exposes the shortcomings of the arguments used by those who engage in the class warfare debate. Again, the time has come to end class warfare demagoguery once and for all. Finally, as vice chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and as one of the House conferees on the tax bill, I can tell my colleagues that there is no one, not one person in either the House or the Senate, that has worked harder or deserves more credit for making this day happen than my friend, and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer. My Chairman, Bill Archer, has worked tirelessly in these past months--late nights and weekends--with one goal in mind--to deliver this tax relief package to the American people. He never lost sight of the goal and he delivered. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help make Bill Archer's hard work pay off and deliver this tax bill to the American people with an overwhelming majority of the vote. [From the Chicago Sun-Times, July 26, 1997] Liberals Are Mighty Generous With Definition of `the Rich' (By Thomas Sowell) Every year Forbes magazine devotes an issue to the rich--a listing of the millionaires and billionaires who have the most money. Liberals in Congress also talk about ``the rich'' whenever anyone wants to lower taxes. Big taxers and big spenders always like to say that there are ``tax cuts for the rich.'' The problem is that these two kinds of rich people are almost entirely different. Most of the people whom politicians and the media call rich don't have even a tenth of what it takes to make the Forbes list. Millions of Americans who never would dream of considering themselves rich are included in the inflated statistics used by the liberals who claim that tax cuts are for the rich. According to a Heritage Foundation study, there are more than 4 million mechanics, repairmen and construction workers who must meet the Clinton administration's definition of rich. So do more than 8 million government employees at federal, state or local levels. How do people who are making modest middle-class incomes suddenly become rich? Let me count the ways. First of all, the statistics used include money that these people never receive. These estimates assume that income is being underreported and add 20 percent to whatever income is reported. The value of your life insurance and pension fund also is counted as income. Anybody can be rich if you add enough fictitious money to his actual income. As a result, anybody in Congress can be a demagogue who says that most of the tax cuts are for the rich. Let's go back to square one. The only people whose taxes can be cut are people who are paying them. Mostly, that is the middle class. When these middle-class people are renamed ``the rich,'' of course there will be ``tax cuts for the rich.'' The misrepresentation does not stop there. The Clinton administration's insistence that the tax cuts should also apply to ``the working poor'' is a classic piece of disinformation. Most very low-income families are not paying federal income taxes in the first place. Extending a ``tax cut'' to them would mean nothing if the words were being used honestly. Used politically, however, what these words mean is that more federal money must be given to them anyway a handout renamed a tax cut. None of this addresses the larger question of whether people making middle-class incomes today have always made middle-class incomes. Many of those who are called rich not only are not, they have not even had middle-class incomes all their lives. They just happen to be in the peak earning years of their lives--as many younger people currently in the lower income brackets will be in later years. The wife of a prosperous doctor hit the nail on the head when she said she resented people who complained about all the money that doctors make. She asked: ``Where were they when we had three children and $85 in the bank?'' Most Americans do not start off in a high income bracket. They work up to it over the years and reach a peak somewhere in their 50s or 60s. That is where most of the high income and wealth in the country is. Census statistics for 1990 show families headed by someone in the 45- to 64-year-old bracket earning nearly double the income of families headed by someone in the 25- to 34-year-old bracket. When it comes to wealth, the disparity is even greater. Census data show the net worth of households headed by someone in the 55- to 64-year-old bracket to be several times that of households headed by someone under 35. Most of the people who are called rich could more accurately be called middle-aged or elderly. They are not a class. They are an age bracket. When they were younger, they were usually in a lower income bracket. The facts are fairly simple. It is the demagoguery that gets complicated.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 expresses the sense of Congress that the government of Mexico should review carefully whether it initiated an anti-dumping investigation against United States exports of high fructose corn syrup in conformity with WTO standards. It urges the United States Trade Representative to take all appropriate measures with regard to the imposition of preliminary anti- dumping duties on U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup. These duties, which range from 61 percent to 102 percent, were imposed on June 25 as the result of a petition filed by the Mexican sugar industry. There is a question as to whether the Mexican Government adequately investigated if domestic producers of HFCS in Mexico are supportive of the petition. In light of the fact that United States corn growers and refiners, including many in my State of Illinois, are suffering the serious disruption of potentially prohibitive tariffs on their sales in Mexico, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I also want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from down state, he is more corn country than I am, because of his active involvement in getting Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 reported over to the House.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) urging the United States Trade Representative immediately to take all appropriate action with regards to Mexico's imposition of antidumping duties on United States high fructose corn syrup, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions. As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a $573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects it funds. Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP], for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the future. When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving them subsequently. By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary, there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer as well.

Mr. CRANE

Mr. CRANE. Yes, I will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?